Blog Feeds
08-19 05:30 PM
The H1B visa (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) program is unlikely to reach its cap of 65,000 before the start of the 2010 fiscal with nearly 20,000 vacancies amid the economic downturn. This has happened for the first time in several years that the demand for the visas, which is mostly availed by Indian professionals, has slowed down.
Also due to a large number of rejections of H-1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) petitions, this figure of 20,000 vacancies has remained almost the same for the past two months. Past figures indicate that Indian IT professionals have been a major beneficiary of H1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) visas. An additional 20,000 H1B can also be issued to those foreign professionals, who have masters or higher degree from the U.S. Though the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 20,000 petitions, it continues to accept applications in this category.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visas_a_review_of_fy_20091.html)
Also due to a large number of rejections of H-1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) petitions, this figure of 20,000 vacancies has remained almost the same for the past two months. Past figures indicate that Indian IT professionals have been a major beneficiary of H1B (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html) visas. An additional 20,000 H1B can also be issued to those foreign professionals, who have masters or higher degree from the U.S. Though the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 20,000 petitions, it continues to accept applications in this category.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visas_a_review_of_fy_20091.html)
wallpaper Teen Layered Short Hairstyle
sansari
03-04 08:07 PM
My first H1 was from "Company A" back in 2001. Company A also sponsored me for my green card. In 2005 I transferred my H1 to Company B, however my green card was still sponsored with Company A. I have an approved I-140 and I am waiting on my PD to become current. My H1 is suppose to get renew in August of 2007, which will be through Company B.
I have heard that after 6 years renewal, your current H1 company should have sponsored you for green card in order to get the 7th year H1. And as you can see in my case that my previous company has sponsored me for my
H1 and not my current company.
Can someone put some light on this issue.
Thanks,
SHA
I have heard that after 6 years renewal, your current H1 company should have sponsored you for green card in order to get the 7th year H1. And as you can see in my case that my previous company has sponsored me for my
H1 and not my current company.
Can someone put some light on this issue.
Thanks,
SHA
prioritydate_question
06-16 11:20 AM
When a particular priority date becomes current in the next month's bulletin,say the July bulletin. Does USCIS start looking at the current cases once the July bulletin is issued or starts looking at them from July 1st.
Any response is appreciated.
Regards.
Any response is appreciated.
Regards.
2011 cute layered hairstyle
segio
06-20 01:30 PM
Thanks. But I heard if they find something critically wrong on 485 form, they may reject it and return it in as long as 3 month! Why can't they just make sure the forms are OK and then start the name check?
immediately after USCIS receives your application
immediately after USCIS receives your application
more...
senk1s
07-27 11:19 PM
It depends on what fee you paid for the 485
davedjhone
04-04 11:24 PM
you need to apply asap to change your status, they will give you a new number on the application and you go from there.
more...
gc_2006
07-01 12:47 AM
Hi,
I am filing the PERM application in EB2 Category. The position needs Bachelors + 5 Years (or) Masters + 1 year. I do have 30 months expereince after finishing my Bachelors degree and 11 months expereince after finishing my Masters degree.
Will I be eligible to file in EB2 as I have Masters degree and more than 12 months of expereince after Bachelors.
My questions is -- How do you count the expereince if its Masters + One year
Will you count one year after finishing the Master Degree completed (or)
Will you count one year after finishing the Bachelors Degree.
Thanks
gc2006
I am filing the PERM application in EB2 Category. The position needs Bachelors + 5 Years (or) Masters + 1 year. I do have 30 months expereince after finishing my Bachelors degree and 11 months expereince after finishing my Masters degree.
Will I be eligible to file in EB2 as I have Masters degree and more than 12 months of expereince after Bachelors.
My questions is -- How do you count the expereince if its Masters + One year
Will you count one year after finishing the Master Degree completed (or)
Will you count one year after finishing the Bachelors Degree.
Thanks
gc2006
2010 layered hairstyles with
nature
07-13 05:12 PM
I am sure with this whole fiasco something good will turn up. It might take long but it will be for betterment of us all. I am proud to be an IV member and fully commend their ongoing efforts.
Cocentrate on brighter side guys.
Cocentrate on brighter side guys.
more...
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
hair Ashley Judd Hairstyles amp;
gcdreamer05
01-24 08:04 AM
It is advisable to file change of status to h4 while in USA, no need to go back to india. After you get your h4 approved then you can go for stamping...
more...
boston_gc
04-14 06:39 PM
Does anyone know when house/senate going to take any action on EB retrogression? Or may be my guess is as good as anyone's??
hot layered teen hair cuts
Green_2007
08-16 10:11 PM
Friends, pls advice:(
more...
house Crazy Lady Gaga haircut
nk2006
04-07 06:55 AM
Well seems like today both sides are going to blame each other for not having a bill today. Big question is - does discussions/negotiations re-start after the recess or is this issue pretty much dead. Most probably they will announce that they will re-start the discussion after vacation and provide the "most important legislation"...blabla... But what are the chances really? especially with new scandals beginning to take all the headlines. This is really frustrating and unfortunate. Lets see how the day goes.
tattoo Popular Layered Hairstyle
kirupa
03-09 02:30 AM
Added :)
more...
pictures Simple layered hairstyles
today24
11-17 07:54 PM
Hi,
I am going back to India by next week. But my L1B extension is still pending (We applied for ext., before it expired and recieved RFE and responded. So as of now its more then 6 months from the date of I-94 expired and still my petition is in process).
My question is,
- while going back, do I need to show the copy of reciept in Port of Entry? (as I need to return my I-94 which is expired long back)
- Will it create any problem when I apply for extension again?
(My employer say, it shouldn't be a problem as I will have Approved/Denial notice which prove that I maintained legal status)
Or is it worth to wait here until I get the decision? (as I may cross 240 days by Jan, I am not sure whether the decision will come before that)...
Please adivce.
I am going back to India by next week. But my L1B extension is still pending (We applied for ext., before it expired and recieved RFE and responded. So as of now its more then 6 months from the date of I-94 expired and still my petition is in process).
My question is,
- while going back, do I need to show the copy of reciept in Port of Entry? (as I need to return my I-94 which is expired long back)
- Will it create any problem when I apply for extension again?
(My employer say, it shouldn't be a problem as I will have Approved/Denial notice which prove that I maintained legal status)
Or is it worth to wait here until I get the decision? (as I may cross 240 days by Jan, I am not sure whether the decision will come before that)...
Please adivce.
dresses young long hairstyle
ny913
09-26 08:42 PM
Hello,
I have this situation and need some advice or if anyone can share their experiences.
H1b extension was denied with reason of "Employer-employee relationship". RFE was responded to (with requested pay stubs and W-2) and was still denied. Now, attorney from company is filing for MTR. How long does MTR processing take as the case was already existing? Does that matter or it doesn't? How long did it take to get a decision from CIS?
Is it possible to file MTR from company A (employer) and to file a new petition from company B (middle vendor who has direct contract with client)? Can the MTR be withdrawn in favor of a new petition?
Did anyone go for MTR and how many days did it take to get the decision?
Thank you.
I have this situation and need some advice or if anyone can share their experiences.
H1b extension was denied with reason of "Employer-employee relationship". RFE was responded to (with requested pay stubs and W-2) and was still denied. Now, attorney from company is filing for MTR. How long does MTR processing take as the case was already existing? Does that matter or it doesn't? How long did it take to get a decision from CIS?
Is it possible to file MTR from company A (employer) and to file a new petition from company B (middle vendor who has direct contract with client)? Can the MTR be withdrawn in favor of a new petition?
Did anyone go for MTR and how many days did it take to get the decision?
Thank you.
more...
makeup Nice Women Layered Medium
sccarol
03-03 09:34 PM
Hi all,
I am in a strange situation-- I have 2 different PDs.
1) PDs on my I-140 is listed: June 30, 2005 (which became current as of 2/11/2011)
2) I recently discovered a different PD listed on the Request for Initial Interview Notice (for my pending I-485). There is a Priority Date box on this notice letter, and date listed is Aug 16, 2007.
Biometrics done Nov2007
Initial Interview done June 2010
FingerPrint done August 2010
Currently on 3rd EAD
Nationality is Taiwan
Current status: AOS pending
I am torn and confused because 2 PDs are 2 years apart. Does any one have the same issue like me? What should I do??? Which PD is the correct one I should go with?? Please help! Thank you so much in advance for your time.
I am in a strange situation-- I have 2 different PDs.
1) PDs on my I-140 is listed: June 30, 2005 (which became current as of 2/11/2011)
2) I recently discovered a different PD listed on the Request for Initial Interview Notice (for my pending I-485). There is a Priority Date box on this notice letter, and date listed is Aug 16, 2007.
Biometrics done Nov2007
Initial Interview done June 2010
FingerPrint done August 2010
Currently on 3rd EAD
Nationality is Taiwan
Current status: AOS pending
I am torn and confused because 2 PDs are 2 years apart. Does any one have the same issue like me? What should I do??? Which PD is the correct one I should go with?? Please help! Thank you so much in advance for your time.
girlfriend layered flipped hairstyle
GCBy3000
05-20 05:26 PM
Look at numbersusa. They are getting 10x times than IV, but still IV is doing better than NU.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.numbersusa.com
By the way, do not forget to look at the ALIPAC
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.alipac.org
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.numbersusa.com
By the way, do not forget to look at the ALIPAC
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.alipac.org
hairstyles Layered Teen Hair Sophia Bush
immigration1234
04-23 10:59 AM
Thank you very much!
joeshmoe
08-30 06:19 PM
Mine and my wife's 485 must have been "touched" today ... not sure why though. The status still says "Case received and pending..."
Any ideas fellow members? Could it be good sign or just standard update...?
Any ideas fellow members? Could it be good sign or just standard update...?
adham_a
04-16 11:29 AM
muahahahaha....goldorak.....that's how i used to call him....!!!! haha, good, but the guy is a bit too stretched....
thanks frost they guy is called dukefleed :p
bye
thanks frost they guy is called dukefleed :p
bye
No comments:
Post a Comment